The Council of Nicaea Is Enough

A letter of ninety bishops of Egypt and Libya, Athanasius among them.

The letters written by our beloved fellow minister Damasus, bishop of the great city of Rome, and by the large number of bishops who gathered with him, are enough. So are the letters of the other synods held in Gaul and in Italy about the sound faith which Christ gave us, which the apostles preached, and which the fathers who met at Nicaea from all this world of ours have handed down. For so great a stir was made at that time about the Arian heresy in order that those who had fallen into it might be won back, and that its inventors might be exposed. To that council, then, the whole world agreed long ago. And now that many synods have been held, everyone has been reminded of it, in Dalmatia and Dardania, Macedonia, Epirus and Greece, Crete and the other islands, Sicily, Cyprus, Pamphylia, Lycia and Isauria, all Egypt and the Libyan provinces; and most of the Arabians have come to know it, and have marveled at those who signed it. For even if any bitterness springing up from the root of the Arians was left among them — we mean Auxentius, Ursacius, Valens and their companions — by these letters they have been cut off and isolated. The confession reached at Nicaea was, we say once more, sufficient and enough by itself to overthrow every impious heresy, and to secure and advance the teaching of the church. But we have heard that some who want to oppose it are trying to cite a synod said to have been held at Ariminum, and are eagerly striving to make it prevail over the other. So we think it right to write and remind you not to put up with anything of the kind, for this is nothing else than a second growth of the Arian heresy. What else do those who reject the synod held against it, the Nicene synod, want, if not that the cause of Arius should prevail? What, then, do such men deserve, but to be called Arians and to share the punishment of the Arians? For they were not afraid of God, who says, “Do not remove the eternal boundaries which your fathers set,” and, “Whoever speaks against father or mother, let him surely die.” They were not in awe of their fathers, who commanded that those who hold the opposite of their confession should be anathema. [b]

This was why an ecumenical synod was held at Nicaea, with 318 bishops gathering to discuss the faith because of the Arian heresy: so that local synods should no longer be held on the subject of the faith, or, if they were held, should not stand. For what does that council lack, that anyone should look for something new? It is full of godliness, beloved, and has filled the whole world with it. Indians have acknowledged it, and all the Christians of other barbarian nations. Vain, then, is the labor of those who have often made attempts against it. For the men we speak of have already held ten or more synods, shifting their ground at each one; they take away some things from earlier decisions, and in later ones make changes and additions. And so far they have gained nothing by writing, erasing and using force, not knowing that “every plant that the heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted.” But the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical synod at Nicaea abides forever. For if one compares number with number, those who met at Nicaea are more than those at local synods, since the whole is greater than the part. But if someone wishes to discern the reason for the synod at Nicaea, and for the large number held afterward by these men, he will find that there was a reasonable cause for the first, while the others were brought together by force, out of hatred and contention. For the first council was called because of the Arian heresy, and because of Easter, since the churches of Syria, Cilicia and Mesopotamia differed from us and kept the feast at the same season as the Jews. But thanks be to the Lord, harmony has come about, not only in the faith but also in the holy feast. That was the reason for the synod at Nicaea. But the later ones were without number, and all of them were planned in opposition to the ecumenical one. [f]

Since this has been shown, who will accept those who cite the synod of Ariminum, or any other, against the Nicene? Who could help hating men who make nothing of their fathers’ decisions, and put above them the newer ones drawn up at Ariminum with contention and violence? Who would want to agree with these men, who do not accept even their own decisions? For in their own ten or more synods, as I said above, they wrote now one thing and now another, and so plainly showed themselves to be the accusers of each one. Their case is not unlike that of the Jewish traitors of old. Just as they left the one well of living water and dug for themselves broken cisterns which cannot hold water, as the prophet Jeremiah says, so these men, fighting against the one ecumenical synod, have “dug for themselves” many synods, and all of them have proved empty, like “a sheaf without strength.” Let us not, then, put up with those who cite the synod of Ariminum or any other against that of Nicaea. For even those who cite the synod of Ariminum seem not to know what was done there; otherwise they would have said nothing about it. You know, beloved, from those who went from you to Ariminum, how Ursacius and Valens, Eudoxius and Auxentius were deposed — and Demophilus too was with them there — after they had wanted to write something to replace the Nicene decisions. For when they were asked to anathematize the Arian heresy, they refused, and chose instead to be its ringleaders. So the bishops, like genuine servants of the Lord and orthodox believers — and there were nearly two hundred of them — wrote that they were satisfied with the Nicene decisions alone, and wanted and held nothing more or less than that. They reported this also to Constantius, who had ordered the synod to meet. But the men who had been deposed at Ariminum went off to Constantius. They caused those who had reported against them to be insulted, to be threatened that they would not be allowed to return to their dioceses, and to be treated with violence in Thrace that very winter, to force them to put up with their innovations. [i]

If, then, any cite the synod of Ariminum, let them first point out the deposition of the men named above, and what the bishops wrote: that no one should look for anything beyond what had been agreed on by the fathers at Nicaea, nor cite any synod except that one. But they keep quiet about this, and make much of what was done by violence in Thrace. So they show that they are Arians in disguise, and strangers to the sound faith. And again, if someone were to examine the great synod itself and compare it with those held by these people, he would discover the godliness of the one and the folly of the others. Those who gathered at Nicaea did not do so after being deposed; and secondly, they confessed that the Son was of the substance of the Father. But the others, after being deposed again and again, and once more at Ariminum itself, dared to write that it should not be said that the Son had substance or hypostasis. This lets us see, brothers, that those of Nicaea breathe the spirit of Scripture. For God says in Exodus, “I am who I am”; and through Jeremiah, “Who is in his substance and has seen his word?”; and a little further on, “If they had stood in my hypostasis and heard my words.” Now hypostasis is substance, and means nothing else than being itself, which Jeremiah calls existence in the words, “and they did not hear the voice of existence.” For hypostasis and substance are existence: it is, or in other words, it exists. Paul too saw this when he wrote to the Hebrews, “who being the radiance of his glory and the exact imprint of his hypostasis.” But the others, who think they know the Scriptures and call themselves wise, refuse to speak of hypostasis in God, for that is what they wrote at Ariminum and at other synods of theirs. Surely, then, they were justly deposed, since they said, as the fool did in his heart, “God is not.” And again, the fathers at Nicaea taught that the Son and Word is not a creature, nor made, since they had read, “All things were made through him,” and, “In him all things were created, and in him they hold together.” But these men, Arians rather than Christians, have dared in their other synods to call him a creature and one of the things that are made — things of which he himself is the craftsman and maker. For if “all things were made through him,” and he too is a creature, he would be the creator of himself. And how can what is being created create? Or how can he who is creating be created? [n]

But not even so are they ashamed, though they say things that make everyone hate them. They cite the synod of Ariminum only to show that there too they were deposed. As for the actual definition of Nicaea, that the Son is of one substance with the Father, this is their pretext for opposing the synod, and they buzz around the phrase everywhere like gnats. Either they stumble at it from ignorance, like those who stumble at the stone of stumbling that was laid in Zion, or else they know it, and for that very reason are always opposing and murmuring, because it is an exact statement and runs full in the face of their heresy. For it is not the phrases that vex them, but the condemnation of themselves which the definition contains. And of this, once again, they themselves are the cause, even if they wish to hide the fact, which they know perfectly well. But we must now tell it, so that from this too the precision of the great synod may be shown. The assembled bishops wished to put away the impious phrases the Arians had devised: “made from nothing,” and that the Son was “a thing made” and a “creature,” and that “there was a time when he was not,” and that “he is of changeable nature.” And they wished to set down in writing the acknowledged language of Scripture: that the Word is from God, by nature the only Son, the Power, the Wisdom of the Father, true God, as John says, and, as Paul wrote, the radiance of the Father’s glory and the exact imprint of his person. But Eusebius and his party, drawn on by their own error, kept conferring together like this: “Let us agree. For we too are from God. For ‘there is one God, from whom are all things,’ and ‘the old things have passed away; look, all things have become new, but all things are from God.’” They also had in mind what is written in the Shepherd: “First of all, believe that God is one, who created all things and set them in order, and made them to exist out of nothing.” But the bishops, seeing their craftiness and the cunning of their impiety, expressed more plainly the sense of the words “from God” by writing that the Son is from the substance of God. The creatures are said to be “from God” because they do not exist of themselves without a cause, but have a beginning of their existence. The bishops wrote as they did so that, by contrast, the Son alone might be recognized as belonging to the Father’s substance as its own. For this is the mark of one who is the only Son and true Word in relation to a Father, and this was why the words “from the substance” were adopted. Again, the bishops asked the deceitful few whether they agreed that the Son was not a creature, but the Power and only Wisdom of the Father, and the eternal Image of the Father, exact in every respect, and true God. Then Eusebius and his party were seen nodding to one another, as much as to say: “This applies to us men too. For we too are called ‘the image and glory of God,’ and of us it is said, ‘For we who live are always.’ There are many powers too: ‘all the power of the Lord went out of the land of Egypt,’ and the caterpillar and the locust are called his ‘great power.’ And ‘the Lord of powers is with us; the God of Jacob is our help.’ For we hold that we are God’s own, and not only that, but so much so that he has even called us brothers. Nor does it trouble us if they call the Son true God. For once he has been made, he exists in truth.” [t]

Such was the corrupt mind of the Arians. But here too the bishops, seeing their craftiness, gathered from the Scriptures the images of radiance, of the river and its spring, and of the exact imprint in relation to the hypostasis, and the texts, “In your light we shall see light,” and, “I and the Father are one.” And at last they wrote more plainly and briefly that the Son was of one substance with the Father, for all the passages above mean this. And their murmuring that the phrases are not in Scripture is shown to be empty by their own conduct. For they have uttered their impieties in words not found in Scripture — such are “from nothing” and “there was a time when he was not” — and yet they find fault because they were condemned in words not found in Scripture, but godly in meaning. They, like men sprung from a dunghill, truly “spoke of the earth.” But the bishops did not invent their phrases for themselves. They had testimony from their fathers, and wrote as they did. For ancient bishops of the great city of Rome and of our own city, some 130 years ago, wrote and censured those who said that the Son was a creature and not of one substance with the Father. And Eusebius, who was bishop of Caesarea, knew this. At first he was an accomplice of the Arian heresy, but afterward, having signed at the Council of Nicaea, he wrote to his own people and affirmed as follows: “We know that certain eloquent and distinguished bishops and writers, even of ancient times, used the term ‘of one substance’ with reference to the Godhead of the Father and the Son.” [ab]

Why, then, do they go on citing the synod of Ariminum, at which they were deposed? Why do they reject that of Nicaea, at which their own fathers signed the confession that the Son is from the Father’s substance and of one substance with him? Why do they run about? For now they are at war not only with the bishops who met at Nicaea, but with their own great bishops and their own friends. Whose heirs or successors, then, are they? How can they call men fathers whose confession, well and apostolically drawn up, they will not accept? If they think they can object to it, let them speak — or rather, let them answer, so that they may be convicted of contradicting themselves. Do they believe the Son when he says, “I and my Father are one,” and, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father”? “Yes,” they must answer, “since it is written, we believe it.” But if they are asked how they are one, and how whoever has seen the Son has seen the Father, we suppose they will of course say, “By likeness” — unless they have gone over entirely to those who hold the opinion that is brother to theirs, and are called Anomoeans. But if they are asked once more, “How is he like?” they brazenly say, “By perfect virtue and harmony, by having the same will as the Father, by not willing what the Father does not will.” But let them understand that one who is made like God by virtue and will is liable also to change his purpose. The Word is not like that — unless he is “like” only in part, as we are, because he is not like God in substance as well. But these traits belong to us, who have come into being and are of a created nature. For we too, though we cannot become like God in substance, still imitate God by progress in virtue, the Lord granting us this grace when he says, “Be merciful, as your Father is merciful,” and, “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” No one can deny that things that have come into being are changeable, seeing that angels transgressed, Adam disobeyed, and all stand in need of the grace of the Word. But a changeable thing cannot be like God, who is truly unchangeable, any more than what is created can be like its creator. This is why the holy man said, with regard to us, “Lord, who will be likened to you?” and, “Who among the gods is like you, Lord?” By gods he meant those who, though created, had become sharers in the Word, as he himself said, “If he called them gods to whom the word of God came.” But things that share in something cannot be identical with or similar to what they share in. For example, he said of himself, “I and the Father are one,” implying that things that have come into being are not so. For we would ask those who appeal to the synod of Ariminum whether a created substance can say, “Whatever things I see my Father make, those I make also.” For things that have come into being are made and do not make; otherwise they made even themselves. Why, if, as they say, the Son is a creature and the Father is his maker, then surely the Son would be his own maker, since he is able to make what the Father makes, as he said. But such a supposition is absurd and wholly untenable, for no one can make himself. [ae]

Once more, let them say whether things that have come into being could say, “All things whatever the Father has are mine.” Now he has the prerogative of creating and making, of eternity, of almighty power, of unchangeableness. But things that have come into being cannot have the power of making, for they are creatures; nor eternity, for their existence has a beginning; nor almighty power and unchangeableness, for they are under rule and of a changeable nature, as the Scriptures say. Well then, if these prerogatives belong to the Son, they plainly do so not because of his virtue, as was said above, but by substance, just as the synod said: “He is of no other substance” than the Father’s, to whom these prerogatives belong as his own. But what can that be which belongs to the Father’s substance as its own, and is an offspring from it? What name can we give it, except “of one substance”? For what a person sees in the Father, he sees also in the Son — and not by participation, but by substance. And this is the meaning of “I and the Father are one,” and, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.” Here especially, once more, it is easy to show their folly. Suppose you hold that the Son is like the Father by virtue, which is what comes before willing and not willing, and before moral progress. Since these things fall under the class of quality, you plainly call God a compound of quality and substance. But who will put up with you when you say this? For God, who put all things together to give them being, is not compound, nor of a nature like the things made by him through the Word. Far be the thought! For he is simple substance, in which there is no quality, nor, as James says, “any variation or shadow of turning.” Accordingly, if it is shown that his likeness is not from virtue — for in God there is no quality, and neither is there in the Son — then he must belong to God’s substance as its own. And you will certainly admit this, unless your power of understanding is utterly destroyed. But what is that which belongs to the substance of God as its own and is the same as it, and an offspring from it by nature, if not, by this very fact, of one substance with the one who begot it? For this is the distinctive relation of a Son to a Father, and whoever denies it does not hold that the Word is Son by nature and in truth. [ak]

This, then, is what the fathers saw when they wrote that the Son was of one substance with the Father, and anathematized those who say that the Son is of a different hypostasis. They did not invent phrases for themselves, but learned in their turn, as we said, from the fathers who had been before them. But after the proof given above, their synod of Ariminum is superfluous, as is any other synod they cite on the faith. For the synod of Nicaea is enough. It agrees with the ancient bishops too, and their own fathers signed it, and they ought to respect them, or else be thought anything but Christians. But if, even after such proofs, and after the testimony of the ancient bishops and the signatures of their own fathers, they pretend, as if in ignorance, to be alarmed at the phrase “of one substance,” then let them say and hold, in simpler terms and truly, that the Son is Son by nature. And let them anathematize, as the synod commanded, those who say that the Son of God is a creature or a thing made, or from nothing, or that there was once a time when he was not, and that he is changeable and liable to alteration, and of another hypostasis. And so let them escape the Arian heresy. We are confident that in sincerely anathematizing these views, they by that very act confess that the Son is from the Father’s substance and of one substance with him. For this is why the fathers, having said that the Son was of one substance, immediately added, “But those who say that he is a creature, or made, or from nothing, or that there was once a time when he was not, the catholic church anathematizes.” They did it so that by this means they might make it known that these things are what the words “of one substance” mean. The meaning of “of one substance” is known from the Son’s not being a creature or a thing made. Whoever says “of one substance” does not hold that the Word is a creature, and whoever anathematizes the views above holds at the same time that the Son is of one substance with the Father. Whoever calls him “of one substance” calls him the Son of God genuinely and truly, and whoever calls him a genuine Son understands the texts, “I and the Father are one,” and, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.” [am]

Now it would be right to write about this at greater length. But since we are writing to you who know, we have dictated it briefly, praying that the bond of peace may be kept among all, and that all in the catholic church may say and hold the same thing. We do not mean to teach, but to remind. Nor is it only ourselves who write, but all the bishops of Egypt and the Libyan provinces, some ninety in number. For we are all of one mind in this, and we always sign for one another if any happen not to be present. Being of this mind, and since we happened to be gathered together, we also wrote to our beloved Damasus, bishop of the great city of Rome. We gave him an account of Auxentius, who has forced his way into the church at Milan: that he not only shares the Arian heresy, but is also accused of many offenses, which he committed together with Gregory, the sharer of his impiety. We expressed our surprise that he has not yet been deposed and expelled from the church. And we thanked Damasus for his godliness and that of those who gathered in the great city of Rome, because by expelling Ursacius and Valens and those who hold with them, they kept the harmony of the catholic church. We pray that this harmony may be kept among you too. And so we beg you, as we said above, not to put up with those who put forward a host of synods held about the faith: at Ariminum, at Sirmium, in Isauria, in Thrace, those in Constantinople, and the many irregular ones in Antioch. But let the faith confessed by the fathers at Nicaea alone stand among you. All the fathers were present there and signed it, as we said above, including the fathers of the men who are now fighting against it. Let it alone stand, so that of us too the apostle may say, “Now I praise you that you remember me in all things, and that you hold fast the traditions just as I handed them on to you.” [an]

For this synod of Nicaea is in truth a condemnation of every heresy. It also overturns those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit and call him a creature. For the fathers, after speaking of faith in the Son, immediately added, “And we believe in the Holy Spirit.” They did this so that, by confessing perfectly and fully the faith in the Holy Trinity, they might make known the exact form of the faith of Christ and the teaching of the catholic church. For it is plain among you and among all, and no Christian can be in doubt on the point, that our faith is not in the creature, but in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, his only Son; and in one Holy Spirit: one God, known in the holy and perfect Trinity. Baptized into this Trinity, and in it united to the Godhead, we believe that we have also inherited the kingdom of the heavens, in Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom be the glory and the power to the Father forever and ever. Amen. [ar]